I don't have ME3 yet, so thus I can't gauge the ending with my own eyes, and I do not want it spoiled in any way, shape, and form, so all I keep hearing from ME3 is that the ending was sooo horribad.

But at the same time, this is what the BioWare writers were preparing for, and they've had so much time dedicated to it that I'm believing they didn't rush it out. If this is the ending, then this is the ending; get over it. One hour is fail is not an excuse to discount 100+ hours of awesome.

Art that's free, you can look at, if you disagree with it or don't like it, you can just walk away.But we've invested 5 years into this, and paid a lot of money. I agree that games can have many forms of artistic merit, especially as i'm currently doing a video games design course. But they're also a form of entertainment and myself, aswell as others have followed this series almost religiously.

I'm not against it because it wasn't a GOOD ending, I'm against it because it was the only ending. (Laser colours don't count)

They have the right to make it as they want but not to expect us to like it when they do it lazily. If they make the ending the same for all 6 endings, make it contradict the story as if they forgot what they were writing for, and clearly left it open for whatever DLC they intend to make.If video games are to be considered art they need to be treated as such. Meaning the stories should not be written solely for mass appeal, and the story should not be dictated by how much DLC they could sell from it. If video games are to be considered art they need to be treated less like a money printing machine, and more like something that has a shred of integrity.

This is not about being picky. While many endings fall short of expectations most often they get accepted. But ME3's ending cannot be accepted. It is a blatant attempt to capitalize. All 6 ensigns are the same. All in two forms or another contradict the background. I refuse to allow you to act like ME3 had some greater artistic meaning. Or that its ending was in ANY way artistically respectful to its background. If barnett wants ME3 respected as art than ME3 should have been treated as art.

Greg Tito:"Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I don't think she should be forced to make another one."

Let's run with this for a second. Imagine, if you will, that we are back in the Forbidden Forest, and Voldemort has just killed Harry. We arrive at the ghostly King's Cross. Dumbledore shows up, all ethereal and shit, points out the aborted fetus that is Voldemort's soul, and tells Harry that he can either destroy it, take control of it, which would give Harry complete control of Voldemort, or he can use the piece of soul to give all Muggles the ability to use magic. Either way, Harry dies. Then we go to a scene where Ron and Hermione wake up in an unknown country on a cliff overlooking a forest. Finish with the Stargazer scene written almost exactly the same.

J.K. Rowling would have been torn to pieces. People would have been calling for her head on a platter. Hell, it wouldn't have made it past her editor, who would have called her a fucking idiot for trying to end her series in such a bullshit way. But she didn't. She ended her series in a way that was thematically in line with the rest of the series.

Greg Tito:"Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I don't think she should be forced to make another one."

Let's run with this for a second. Imagine, if you will, that we are back in the Forbidden Forest, and Voldemort has just killed Harry. We arrive at the ghostly King's Cross. Dumbledore shows up, all ethereal and shit, points out the aborted fetus that is Voldemort's soul, and tells Harry that he can either destroy it, take control of it, which would give Harry complete control of Voldemort, or he can use the piece of soul to give all Muggles the ability to use magic. Either way, Harry dies. Then we go to a scene where Ron and Hermione wake up in an unknown country on a cliff overlooking a forest. Finish with the Stargazer scene written almost exactly the same.

J.K. Rowling would have been torn to pieces. People would have been calling for her head on a platter. Hell, it wouldn't have made it past her editor, who would have called her a fucking idiot for trying to end her series in such a bullshit way. But she didn't. She ended her series in a way that was thematically in line with the rest of the series.

II2:I think people are assuming Mr. Levine's statement is an apology for the ending.

Really, all he said was he's lamenting that nobody is getting what they wanted; neither the fans or the studio, and it's unlikely that some rewritten ending is going to make either party feel better about it. That is a sad thing.

The article seems misleading, since it was Barnnet talking about art and Rowling and etc that people seem to be ascribing to Levine.

Christ, it's dangerous to be a 'voice' and have any opinion on this particular topic. It's like hanging your junk over a shark pool in a hurricane.

Fawxy:The majority of people aren't mad about the "sad" or "downer" nature of the endings, god damnit. People are mad that they spent 100+ hours on a series, only for every single choice they made to be thrown out the window and not make a single damn difference in the end.

This, of course, is after we were told that our choices actually would matter.

This!! 100 times over!

This is why the Mass Effect ending upset so many people, not that the ending sucked. Its because of the false promises and like everything up to that point meant absolutely nothing. Who was loyal to you, who you picked in the final fight to acompany you.. nothing was tied up. It was rushed and horrible and was enough to make me not want to play the single player campaign again.

The multiplayer is fun though, ironic really when the game is considered to be the best singleplayer one... Ok I'll be quiet now.

I want games to be art. But art has been studied for as long as it has been created, and there are rules to art. Stories in particular follow certain conventions. For example, everyone recognizes that a writer who brings up something that was never hinted at before to resolve a situation, such as an ability by a character that has no explanation or reason other than to resolve the situation, is a hack. It's bad storytelling.

So is when you contradict yourself. If you spend three games finding evidence to support an idea, having a character point out the idea is wrong a the last minute without any reasoning, just saying it is so is bad storytelling. It's not a subversion or any other clever trick. Just outright contradiction for the sake of forcing you to make a needless choice. Everything that supported the idea is still true and still out there, you just get a character that believes otherwise and you are forced to agree.

This again is hack writing. If you are going to build your finale towards an idea, you have to bring up that idea before in the tale. You have to reference it, give evidence for it. Otherwise, your ending is completely disconnected from the tale and offers no closure. It's even worse when the idea contradicts the tale. You're not just providing no closure, you're tearing down the work your finale should have to stand on.

Beyond everything, though, I agree with Ken Levine. This whole situation is just sad. Bioware might provide an ending, or they might not, but they can't unmake the mess they created with the ending they chose to give the series. The series is already ruined. Saying 'it was all a dream' would have been better. At least that way you'd know that nothing ever mattered and have a bit of closure.

Playing a hastily written DLC, providing what they think the audience wants (and it's even sadder when you read their responses and realize they don't even understand what went wrong) won't please anyone.

you are not Artists. Atleast not in my Book. You create what you create with the main intent of selling it for a profit. Would you claim the guys behind MS Excel Artists? Well, no, you wouldn't. So stop pretending that you are Artists. You are Designers, you create, but not just for the enjoyment of creating or to get a message out, while they can be in there, it's not WHY you do it. That's why I myself am also a Designer most of the time, because if I do some work, I want to be paid.

In closing, fuck your ''artistic integrity'', you have no integrity otherwise, so stop trying to pull this crap when you let your customers down. Create and give it to people for the sake of spreading your message, without charging them, allow them to pay if they want but also not pay if they wish so. Then I'll think about considering you artists, until then stop trying to defend your mistakes with ''artistic integrity''. It's bullshit people.

Also, Mr. Levine, watch yourself, say something stupid and I'll also have to reconsider giving you money for Infinite. Which, by the way, isn't art.

Darkmantle:where was this guy when Sherlock Holmes got ret-conned back into existence?

Sherlock Holmes was brought back, not because fans protested for Doyle to bring him back, but because the book was a major hit and Doyle wanted to do a sequel.

:O

But how could he go back and change his mind! surely he gave up his artistic integrity when he decided to change the story! he should have left it as it was! let it stand on how it was written as it were. he betrayed his own work by changing it like that!

Darkmantle:where was this guy when Sherlock Holmes got ret-conned back into existence?

Sherlock Holmes was brought back, not because fans protested for Doyle to bring him back, but because the book was a major hit and Doyle wanted to do a sequel.

Partially right; nobody knows the correct answer for sure.

After resisting public pressure for eight years, the author wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles, which appeared in 1901, implicitly setting it before Holmes's "death" (some theorise that it actually took place after "The Return" but with Watson planting clues to an earlier date).[50][51] The public, while pleased with the story, was not satisfied with a posthumous Holmes, and so Conan Doyle revived Holmes two years later. Many have speculated on his motives for bringing Holmes back to life, notably writer-director Nicholas Meyer, who wrote an essay on the subject in the 1970s entitled "The Great Man Takes a Walk". The actual reasons are not known, other than the obvious: publishers offered to pay generously

But it has been documented on numerous occasions that Conan Doyle wanted to move away from Sherlock, finding the books boring and wishing to write "something more adult". It wasn't until the culmination of massive fan uproar and the publishers offering good money for the pulp material that he returned.

I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that i have to like the ending. If they do decide to change it i will be happy, if they don't then whatever. I'm just sad that in the end it doesn't really matter what i did during those hundreds of hours of gameplay, especially when ME2's ending was so good, i had several playthrougs before i got everything right and everyone survived. I tried to do the same in ME3, but apparently having over 7000 military stregth and making everyone get along was pointless, next time i play it i might as well tell everyone to fuck off and get the same result.

Fawxy:The majority of people aren't mad about the "sad" or "downer" nature of the endings, god damnit. People are mad that they spent 100+ hours on a series, only for every single choice they made to be thrown out the window and not make a single damn difference in the end.

This, of course, is after we were told that our choices actually would matter.

Pretty much this; what the heck is the point in an ending that takes effectively nothing into account save a score; choices are irrelevant, save that you got enough score to get a certain ending. That is a terrible ending, especially that so much time and effort has been invested to get it. Hey, I wouldn't have minded Shepard dying/going MIA in the ending, but "choice-then-cutscene" is not a very fulfilling ending.

Yeah, maybe games are an art form Ken, but you forget that people paid for this piece of art and didn't receive what they were told they would. I think people have the right to be angry then, no?

people need to understand that the ending isnt hated for its artistic failings, not really. bioware plain lied to us about how the game would end, stating publicly that this specific A, B, or C ending would not happen. saying specifically that every question yet to be answered answered will be.

this isnt just a bad ending. it is a mechanically faulty ending. it is false advertising. it is a consumer product not functioning as advertised. stop with the hyperbolic madness of artist's now caving in to fan dissatisfaction. it is bioware who made wild promises of things they completely failed to deliver. fucking peter monyleux didint lie this bad.

the only question now is whether it is free or not. if it is free, i dont care how terrible it ends up, at least they are making an honest effort. if it isnt, then bioware/EA can take their "ransom the real ending" scheme and shove it right up their collective asses.

It's funny how the industry is all on the same side, it's almost like they're politicians parroting the party line and trying to control the narrative of the story. If you can consider games "art" then you would also have to consider it to be more like a commissioned work. If the customer isn't happy, he's not going to pay you until you change it. Sadly in today's market the seller always gets their cash up front.

I'm sure it's also been mentioned before, but various authors, including very famous ones like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens have had to change their books after they were published due to customer backlash. Something to think about. You can also look at a recent entry, Mass Effect: Deception, that too needed to be changed due to fan backlash.

InB4; You readers are so entitled to wanting a book without plot holes, and wanting to change the artist's vision. Don't like it don't buy it, or if you already bought it don't buy any more of their books in the future.

You know, I respect Levine for this, I may not agree, but I respect his opinion. And he does have a point, I seriously doubt that all the ending complaints will die down when it's fixed, most of them maybe, but not all. I'll shut up about it when they do.

Good move, this gentleman agreeing with my mentality has confirmed my purchase of Bioshock: Infinite.

If BioWare succumb and offer a revised ending, I will not play their games past this. The trouble with this "outrage" is that it is only delivered by a certain type of individual.

I'm not going to attempt slander here, but we all know of whom fits the criteria to believe their personal belief of how something should go should be shouted from the rooftops and imposed.

Mass Effect is over, accept it. If the ending is changed, it is quite clearly pandering and personally it ruins the integrity of the company if they are willing to bastardise their work to satisfy the vocal fraction of their total consumer base.

I hope they charge $30.00 for it if done. If you're "upset" enough to go to lengths to remove this ending, you'll definitely pay through the nose for it and you should be cleansed of as much money as possible.

sabercrusader:You know, I respect Levine for this, I may not agree, but I respect his opinion. And he does have a point, I seriously doubt that all the ending complaints will die down when it's fixed, most of them maybe, but not all. I'll shut up about it when they do.

Yeah but not pleasing everybody is very very different from pleasing basically nobody. Very few people actually like these endings, at best they tolerate them.

So Yeah he's right you can't please everybody but you could damm well attempt to please more then you are at the moment.

But it has been documented on numerous occasions that Conan Doyle wanted to move away from Sherlock, finding the books boring and wishing to write "something more adult". It wasn't until the culmination of massive fan uproar and the publishers [bold]offering good money[/bold] for the pulp material that he returned

I always thought it was the financial side of things that compelled him to return to it. That is equally in play for Bioware/EA of course.

I think the point is being missed here by Levine, which doesn't surprise me because "Bioshock 2" got some pretty substantial criticisms on it's writing.

The key to understanding this issue is to realize there is a differance between an ending a few vocal fanboys don't like, and and ending that virtually everyone dislikes.

What's more there is also the factor that this game was intended to be a triology, but Bioware/EA decided to turn it into a franchise, and thus the ending isn't viewed as being art, but as a way of basically not resolving anything in a direct fashion so they could make more money off of it. This is a BIG part of the reception which I think a lot of people are missing.

Then there is the whole issue connected to the above that Bioware made promises involving the ending which were not met.

Like it or not, the "games as art" defense can't be applied to companies just flat out screwing up or a way of justifying profiteering overcoming the writing and design. People saying that games can be a platform to create art doesn't mean that the potential is a get out of jail free card for developers to prtentiously invoke "art" as a defense of anything they want to do.

What's more, art can still suck, really it can. Artists frequently wind up changing their work based on reception, especially when they are working for money.

Look at it this way, if you go to a theater to see a film and it sucks to the point of upsetting the majority of people, those people will demand their money back and receive it. Being "Art" doesn't change the fact that the work sucks. In the case of ME3 once you pay for it, your stuck even if you thinkt the ending was a huge waste.

What's more those creating art not intended for the mainstream typically do so in free shows or to a very limited audience, not as a mass market production like ME3. See, a little independant game costs you nothing but time, or only a few bucks (which in many cases is pushing it), Mass Effect 3 cost you $60 freaking bucks minimum, and $180 or more accross the whole trilogy.

There is no defense for the way Bioware dropped the ball here, none. It's true that they will probably not be able to create a universally rave-worthy ending, but they CAN create an ending that won't be universally hated by nearly everyone.

Fawxy:The majority of people aren't mad about the "sad" or "downer" nature of the endings, god damnit. People are mad that they spent 100+ hours on a series, only for every single choice they made to be thrown out the window and not make a single damn difference in the end.

This, of course, is after we were told that our choices actually would matter.

Exactly.

This is just the point that everyone on the other side of the argument is missing. We were not angry because the story didn't end the way we wanted it to, we're angry because everything we did amounted to shit. Frankly I see this as more of a gameplay/structure issue than a problem with the script itself.

We want 2 things:

1) Closure. This is NOT the same as a happy ending. Closure simply means we want a fair ending which ties up the loose ends and doesn't create more plot holes. Even when terrible events happen you can still find closure afterwards.

Subjective, not everything NEEDS to have closure. Leaving us with some questions to ask ourselves ("did I do the right thing?") can make the journey that more poignant.

Imagine if people were to start demanding a full background on who the G-Man is, you would think its stupid to demand things to change according to your own subjective preferences...

...But that is exactly what you are doing.

2) Choice. We wanted an ending based on OUR decisions, you know, the ones we spent three whole games making. Choices that were given more consideration and investment than some of our own real-life, everyday choices! Instead we all got the same ending. Everyone got the same ending. Paragon Shepards and Renegade Shepards got the same ending. I got the same ending as you and you and you.

The same ending.

You mean how you got the same ending in both Mass Effect 1 and 2, despite any of the choices that you made?

In ME3, the choices that you made and your accomplishment actually had SOME effect on how the ending panned out. Because to get the Synthesis choice you had to have enough war assets. That's more of an effect than in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

You mean how you got the same ending in both Mass Effect 1 and 2, despite any of the choices that you made?

In ME3, the choices that you made and your accomplishment actually had SOME effect on how the ending panned out. Because to get the Synthesis choice you had to have enough war assets. That's more of an effect than in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Funny that no one demanded that they change the ending back then.

The endings to ME 1 and 2 worked from a gameplay and narrative perspective, closing the story in a satisfying way that also -seemed- to offer a last choice that would be explored later.

In ME one, a major battle up the side of the citadel tower, followed by a fight up the steps of the council chambers themselves to confront the foe the game had built up the whole game. Then you get to choose to kill or save the council, and who should be the human consular.

In ME two, a complex suicide mission that reflected how you played. Hard work gets paid off with survival, while bad choices and a lack of preparation can get lots of characters you've spent a lot of time with killed. In the end, you choose to destroy the collector base or not.

In ME 3 the main character is crippled and the last fight is vs Murader Shields (never forget), then a long, deliberatly dreamlike sequence where the reapers fall totally out of focus as the primary threat of the game, instead giving a final 'battle' with the Illusive Man that dose little to satisfy, followed by the introduction of a godlike being that is admittedly the worst mass murder in history, whom you do -nothing- to question or denounce. Then an ending cinematic that is full of stupid errors, and has only tiny differences depending on your EMS (The only time EMS is used, ever, in the game).

If BioWare succumb and offer a revised ending, I will not play their games past this. The trouble with this "outrage" is that it is only delivered by a certain type of individual.

I'm not going to attempt slander here, but we all know of whom fits the criteria to believe their personal belief of how something should go should be shouted from the rooftops and imposed.

Mass Effect is over, accept it. If the ending is changed, it is quite clearly pandering and personally it ruins the integrity of the company if they are willing to bastardise their work to satisfy the vocal fraction of their total consumer base.

I hope they charge $30.00 for it if done. If you're "upset" enough to go to lengths to remove this ending, you'll definitely pay through the nose for it and you should be cleansed of as much money as possible.

What if it's (and this is the most likely scenario) a continuation, with nothing adjusted - aka - The Indoctrination Theory DLC.

Will you pack a sad then, or be in limbo, unsure whether to cry or frown?

Big ME fan. The ending wasnt as good as it could have been but overall i dont care. I still enjoyed the game and the history etc behind it all. One crappy ending wont change that.Use your imagination for fucks sake, do you really want everything spelled out for you? What if what Bioware says happens to Grunt after ME3 doesnt match what you think? What if Grunt abandoned war and opens a flower shop on earth?

RatRace123:Again, people make the claim that art is something that exists only in the mind of the artist and can't be changed and people just need to get that, and again comparisons are made to works in different forms of media!

Why don't we draw comparisons to other games when discussing the "change the ending" subject. Why, I myself can think of a game that was released a few years back that had its ending changed due to fan complaints.

Was Bethesda's artistic integrity less valuable than Bioware's when they changed the ending of Fallout 3? Didn't they also have the right not to let their fans bully them into submission?

Of course they did; they could've told fans "Nope, screw y'all, ending stays." They didn't though. They chose to listen to fans and change the ending because it was a good business move.

I believe games are art, but they're also a huge money making business. A business which is fueled by the fans, so it's a good idea from a business stance, to placate the fans. Now Bioware doesn't have to do this, they can say that they don't intend to change the ending and then the fans would drop the matter, and incidentally they'd probably also stop buying Bioware games.

They're perfectly within their rights to stick to their artistic vision and tell the fans to suck it up, but it would be a good business move for them to make an ending change DLC. Not just for Mass Effect 3's profits but for the profits of future Bioware games.

50,000+ people have expressed disappointment with Mass Effect 3's ending and many of them have said that they won't buy another Bioware product until their complaints are addressed. Assuming they all bought it new for 60 bucks, that's 3 million dollars in sales. Even if 50,000 is a small fraction of the 3.5 million people who've purchased the game, 3 million dollars is not a sum to sneeze at. Now assuming those 50,000 people stay true to their word and never buy another Bioware game or product again, that's 3 million dollars in potentially lost sales. That might not matter for a hugely popular game like Mass Effect 3, but for a new IP or for a less popular series, that 3 million could make or break it.

The problem the game industry has the with their incomplete auteur theory is that their medium is very expensive and much more of a commercial endeavor then some of the other mediums they liken themselves to. Usually an art film is a low budget affair with limited funding and thus limited expectation of return. Which allows the filmmaker a great deal more freedom when using challenging themes, symbolism etc. A game like Mass Effect is a huge event and costs the publisher millions in Dev and Marketing.

I personally have never expected much in the way of "artistic integrity" when it comes to blockbuster forms of media. Whether that medium is considered one of art or not. It saddens me to a degree that the industry doesn't accept that with the budgets they take on they are responsible to release a commercially successful product and that in some part will under-cut their suppositions of art. They become a slave in one form or another to the consumer at that point.

and for the record I don't personally care about the series or if they update their ending. Its just to cry art after spending so much damn money and being forced to be so profitable and popular (you know for when they make their next blockbuster game) is craven and a cop out.

Hyper-space:Subjective, not everything NEEDS to have closure. Leaving us with some questions to ask ourselves ("did I do the right thing?") can make the journey that more poignant.

Imagine if people were to start demanding a full background on who the G-Man is, you would think its stupid to demand things to change according to your own subjective preferences...

...But that is exactly what you are doing.

Subjective indeed, I'll agree with you there. I have no problem wondering if what I did was the right thing. All I ask is some kind of explaination as to what it was I actually DID.

None of the three endings provide adequate information about what each of them meant for the galaxy at large and I could speculate that every ending had exactly the same consequences because they were identical aside from different colours of magical laser beam.

Your analogy involving the G-Man is also flawed. I find the G-Man to be a very enigmatic figure and I love him as an antagonist because he is so wonderfully vague in his motives, so much so that it's not entirely clear if he really is an antagonist at all. We are exposed to him on very few occassions and frankly there's no real evidence to say he even exists.

I like that. I also liked that the Reapers were not entirely explained. Massive, looming threats, incomprehensible to the human mind. They seemingly wipe out all life in our galaxy for no reason beyond the fact that they "just can." That is until the ending, whereupon they are revealed to be part of some sort of intergalactic conspiracy to save us from ourselves by killing us. Huh, I preferred it when I didn't know. Just like the G-Man.

You mean how you got the same ending in both Mass Effect 1 and 2, despite any of the choices that you made?

In ME3, the choices that you made and your accomplishment actually had SOME effect on how the ending panned out. Because to get the Synthesis choice you had to have enough war assets. That's more of an effect than in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Funny that no one demanded that they change the ending back then.

Ok fair point. BUT Mass Effect 2 had a dynamic ending. It's not about the ending itself per se, more about how you get there.

Mass Effect 2's final level was an exciting assault on an impossible target. The whole event took into account everything you had done in the game previously. Crew members would die if you had not upgraded the Normandy fully, they would die if you send the wrong specialist to a perform a certain task. Should enough of your crew die, you might even FAIL the mission and die yourself. You are presented with an ultimate choice at the end which will have consequences later on.

Mass Effect 3's final battle was just a load of enemies thrown at you in increasingly heavy waves. No choices came into effect here, nothing you had done previously had any bearing on how you performed or even if you succeeded. You were pushed into a linear path towards a linear goal where you got an A, B or C choice based on nothing else in the whole trilogy.

The only saving grace was the mind battle with Anderson and TIM, which is really where the game should have truly ended.

Sorry Ken but even though it's a creative property it was still a product. a product in a business. A product in a business with an extremely high risk competitive market. A product in a business with an extremely high risk competitive market that failed to deliver what was blatantly promised. Fans have every right to be upset about it, bioware probably should compensate for it if they want to keep them, even if its art you still have critics and a target audience to satisfy and if you aren't doing that your game is shit and people are entitled to complain about it.

If you want your special snowflake game to remain totally the same then why bother making a million dollar aaa title that exists solely to appease and entertain people for money? In fact if you don't care what people think and just want to make your pet project vision then why let others play it? Part of art is taking in what others think. You can make a terrible shitty piece of trash but don't say "Pffft I intended to" when a mob of people tell you how terrible and shitty it is.

When 90% of the audience agrees it sucks and want it redone it hardly divides them it unites them. And it's not considered art when it's a clear ripoff of someone else's work ie (Deus EX) It's called plagiarism.